Wilful denial of justice by Shri Komalsing Rajput, Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, Mumbai, to a widow thrown out of her home – Complaint- reg.

Mrs. Sabina Lakdawala
w/o late Mr. Yusuf M. Lakdawala
Flat 14,15 Sunflower Building
Carter Rd, Bandra West, Mumbai,
Maharashtra 400050
Communication may be addressed to my lawyer,
Adv. Maria Nedumpara, at
12F , A wing, Harbour Heights,
Narayan A Sawant Rd, Azad Nagar,
Colaba, Mumbai,
Maharashtra- 400005
9820910396/9820535428

30 December, 2021

To,
1) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta
Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay

Also to,
All the judges of the High Court of Bombay

May it please your Lordship/Ladyship,

Sub: Wilful denial of justice by Shri Komalsing Rajput, Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, Mumbai, to a widow thrown out of her home – Complaint- reg.

1. I am the wife of late Mr. Yusuf Lakdawala who died on 9.9.2021 while in judicial custody for offences allegedly committed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. He was a film financer and builder, and died intestate leaving properties more than 1000 crores. I married him on 25.12.2007. From his first marriage he has a son, two daughters and eight grandchildren, some of them major. My husband was diagnosed with cancer in 2009 and despite the best treatment, he succumbed to it.

2. There is an age difference of more than 25 years between me and my husband and my marriage to him was not to the liking of his children and grandchildren. Till his arrest in 2019 by the economic offences wing for alleged land grabbing, he was in complete control of his business empire and I too had a role as his wife in the affairs of his family and business. His long incarceration in jail resulted in the straining of the relationship between me and my in-laws and I had to face repeated physical and verbal attack at their hands. I came to know from reliable sources of the design to alienate the properties of my husband by forging documents. Accordingly, I instituted a suit in the City Civil Court for certain declaratory and other remedies. On 3.7.2021 the notice was served on my in-laws, and on that night I was attacked.

3. My in-laws and my husband’s extended family are influential and they were able to get me arrested during the wee hours of 4.7.2021. My step daughter-in-law while attacking me suffered a minor injury to her eyebrow. The police has no jurisdiction to register an FIR for minor injuries, ie. offence under Section 323 of the IPC. They, therefore, maliciously implicated me for causing grievous hurt under Section 326. Though I was released, the threat of arrest remained over my head like a Damocles sword. I was, therefore, constrained to file a writ petition before the Bombay High Court for quashing of the FIR. The bench of Justice Varale, noble and concerned as their Lordships are, said it was only appropriate to resolve the family dispute by mediation. My in-laws were not ready for that. They misrepresented before the Court that my late husband had said that he would resolve it on being released on bail. The High Court took yet another attempt at mediation but did not succeed. However, this process meant almost 3 months being lost.

4. I was arrested from my home in my night gown with nothing in hand but my phone. All my personal belongings and valuables were at my home. My in-laws ransacked my room and took away all my personal belongings, everything I owned, including my wedding ring worth over one crore rupees, reducing me to a state of vagrancy and destitution. I could not have entered my home for I feared that I would be attacked again or even killed. On the orders of the High Court I sought police protection. The commissioner declined it by a non-speaking order. The High Court directed the Commissioner to hear me and pass a speaking order. The Commissioner heard me and passed a speaking order saying that protection cannot be granted because of the false FIR against me. I challenged the Commissioner’s order before the High Court and the High Court on 12.10.2021, namely after four months, found that the injury allegedly caused by me on my daughter-in-law was a minor one as per the police records and that I shall not be arrested.

5. The Parliament enacted the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V Act), to provide effective protection to the rights of women who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family. Sections 17 of the Act confers rights on every woman in a domestic relationship to reside in the shared household whether she has a title or beneficial interest in the same or not. The Section also provides that a woman shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared house or any part of it except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Sections 18, 19 and 21 of the Act confer on the Magistrate, sweeping powers to protect the rights of women. Section 23 of the Act empowers the Magistrate to pass ex parte orders.

6. With the protection from arrest granted by the Bombay High Court, I could move an application before Shri Komalsing Rajput, the 12th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bandra, under the Domestic Violence Act. Accordingly, filed an application on 25.10.2021 and sought ex parte orders. The Magistrate kept the matter for hearing on 26.10.2021. My lawyer argued the manner exhaustively and the case was adjourned for orders to 30.10.2021.

7. When my lawyer moved the application, Shri Komalsing Rajput was receptive and was courteous to my lawyer. I was relieved, because I felt that now, after a gap of more than 4 months, I would finally be able to enter my home and my state of vagrancy would finally come to an end. But things were not destined to be so. My husband being in the construction and film industry has wide connections and I have heard from him, from the horses own mouth, that sometimes he has been able to influence government officials and even judges. I came to know from reliable sources that the Magistrate will not grant any order and that he will delay and derail my application, and that the strategy of my in-laws is to financially and emotionally wreck me by managing to delay the judicial process.

8. On 30.10.2021, I was told that the Magistrate has left for Diwali holidays without passing any orders. My lawyer moved the Magistrate in charge, but to no avail. On 1.11.2021 the matter was mentioned before the bench of Justice Kathawalla. The High Court heard me on 3.11.2021 and directed the Magistrate to pass an order “on or before 10.11.2021”. I produced the order of the High Court before the Magistrate on 8.11.2021 and sought early pronouncement of orders. On 10.11.2021, the Magistrate passed an order rejecting my application for ex parte relief and issued notice to the Respondents (my in-laws) as to “why interim relief prayed for shall not be granted against them” and adjourned the case for hearing my in-laws on 15.11.2021.

9. On 15.11.2021, the case was adjourned to 23.11.2021. On 23.11.2021, my in-laws appeared through their lawyer and sought time to file a reply and the case was adjourned to 24.11.2021. On 24.11.2021, the Magistrate Ld. Komalsing Rajput was on leave. I mentioned the matter before the Magistrate in-charge and the Court adjourned the case for reply of my in-laws to 27.11.2021.

10. On 27.11.2021, I was told that the Magistrate has gone for training and will be available only after a week and to therefore move the alternative judge in-charge for emergent hearing, bringing to the notice of the Court my state of destitution. The Court adjourned the case to 3.12.2021.

11. On 3.12.2021, namely, 5 months after I am rendered homeless, my in-laws, all of them  namely, Respondent no. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, appeared through their lawyer, filed vakalatnama and filed their counter affidavit. The Magistrate by his order dated 10.11.2021, by which ex parte relief was denied to me, had ordered notice to the opposite party, namely my in-laws. On 3.12.2021, all of them were present through their lawyer. They had filed their counter affidavit. My lawyer told the court that he is not seeking time to file a rejoinder, and therefore the case be heard forthwith. But my in-laws’ lawyer sought adjournments. My lawyer objected saying what for. The only person who would seek an adjournment is me, because I have a right to file a rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by my in-laws. My lawyer insisted that if my in-laws lawyer is not willing to argue, which is their duty, the Court should hear me and decide the issue. The lawyer for my in-laws did not offer any reason whatsoever ever for seeking an adjournment. He did not utter a word on the merits of the case. What was going on, which was evident not only to me but others who were present in court was the gestures and eye contact between my in-laws’ lawyer and the Magistrate.

12. I beg to extract the roznama of the Court on 3.12.2021 for ready reference:

“Called. Applicant and her advocate present. Respondent absent, their advocate present. Exh-8- Vakalatnama of respondent Nos 1,2,4,5 and 6. – Seen. Exh. – 9 – Say of respondent no. 2. – R and R. Exh. – 10- Copy of High Court order. On insistence of applicant argument heard on interim reliefs. Adj. for order.”

13. My lawyer argued the case exhaustively, pointing out that the purpose of the suit filed by me is different from the proceedings under the D.V Act. The Civil suit is for the determination of the respective rights and obligations in dispute between me and my in-laws. The D.V Act is for the protection of women from destitution and vagrancy by ensuring a place to reside, protection from domestic violence, emergent monetary relief and the like. In the Civil suit, my in-laws have not even filed a written statement or counter affidavit and the suit is not currently vigorously prosecuted in view of the reliefs sought before the Magistrate, and that there is no question of any estoppel or bar.

14. As aforesaid, I could learn from reliable sources that Shri Komalsing Rajput is under the influence of my in-laws, to put it mildly. I am unable to produce any tangible, verifiable evidence because my source of information is discreet. I bonafide believe that there is absolutely no other reason for the extremely strange manner in which the Ld. Magistrate has chosen to conduct the judicial proceeding as far as I am concerned. The proof of my allegation that he was been won over are the orders which he has passed, which are manifestly and shockingly improper and irrational. As I narrate what has further transpired, your Hon’ble selves will be convinced of the veracity of my allegation.

15. On 3.12.2021, my lawyer argued the case in its entirety by making a specific reference to the counter affidavit which was severed on him in open court that day. My lawyer told the court that the counter affidavit does not require any reply and is nothing but falsehood on oath, for which I will be taking further independent proceedings as contemplated under Section 340 of the CRPC r/w Section 195 thereof. My in-laws’ lawyer did not utter a word in reply. It is not for me to force him to argue if he has chosen not to. The only order the Magistrate could have passed was a final order on the merits in respect of the interim application for interim relief which I had preferred. However, Shri Komalsing Rajput, the  Magistrate, dismissed my application for interim relief despite my in-laws having been represented by their lawyer and their counter affidavit being on record, without even uttering a word on the merits of the case, namely, on my entitlement to reside in the household which I share with my husband/in-laws, the protection which I am entitled against domestic violence, about my rights for monetary relief.

16. The order of Shri Komalsing Rajput, Magistrate dated 6.12.2021 is a wilful denial of justice. He is undoubtedly influenced by extraneous and corrupt considerations. The fact that the Magistrate was influenced, acted on extraneous and corrupt considerations is manifest from the very order itself and nothing more is required except his past conduct and the further orders which he has passed which I will be referring to infra.

17. The Magistrate had adjourned the case for final hearing to 22.1.2022.

18. My in-laws had filed a counter affidavit. My application was ripe for final hearing as well. Faced with the brazen conduct of the Magistrate, I approached the High Court seeking a direction to the Magistrate to hear my case on merits and pass an order. The High Court by its order dated 14.12.2021 directed the Magistrate to hear my plea for advancement sympathetically, considering that I have been thrown out of my home, so too the purpose for which the DV Act has been enacted. My counsel, producing the High Court order sought hearing of final hearing of the case on its merits after giving prior notice to the lawyers for my in-laws. My counsel argued the case in extensio, once again. And once again, the opposite lawyer did not utter even a word in reply on the merits. All that happened was communication by way of eye contact and gestures between the Magistrate and the lawyer for my in-laws.

19. The whole scene seemed orchestrated. The Magistrate did not pass an order on the merits of the case, on my entitlement, rights as vested in me in terms of  Sections 17 to 23 of the DV Act, holding that he ceased to have jurisdiction so far as the application for interim relief is concerned. He passed no orders, either as an interim order or as final order. There cannot be a greater travesty of justice, contempt of the majesty of law and the authority of the High Court, nay, a greater slap on the civilized a society than the manner in which the Magistrate has chosen to conduct himself in the instant case. I was relegated to the Magistrate by the High Court by its order dated 12.10.2021. The High Court by its order dated 3.11.2021 and 14.12.2021 directed the Magistrate to pass orders on my case its merits. However, till date an order on the merits of my case, my entitlement, my rights in terms of Sections 17 to 23 for the injury which I have suffered has not been passed, nay, not a word, not a whisper on the merits of my case has not been passed.

20. The Magistrate by his order dated 22.12.2021 rejected my application for interim relief after issuing notice to my in-laws and after them having appeared, without requiring their lawyer to address him, for which alone he had issued the notice to my in-laws by his order dated 10.11.2021, observing that he ceased to have jurisdiction, and that original order which he had passed issuing show cause notice to my in-laws has become final. Could there be a greater absurdity, nay, travesty of justice?

21. I do not at all think that the mistake he made is bonafide or that it is out of ignorance of the fundamental principles of law. But assuming it to be so, he is disqualified to continue as a Magistrate, for as a Magistrate he ought to know that there can be no res judicata or estoppel or finality unless an issue has been decided on its merits, which he did not, wilfully.

22. If persons like Mr. Komalsing Rajput are allowed to continue to act as District Magistrates administering the provisions of the D.V Act then the very Act would be reduced to a worthless piece of paper. I have been made to suffer great injustice despite being fortified by the services of a dedicated team of lawyers. I shudder to think of a less fortunate one who does not have such support. I am a widow, rendered homeless, dragged out of my home at midnight, in my night gown, by the police on the false complaint of my in-laws and have been denied justice till date.

23. The high constitutional authorities to whom I have addressed this letter are vested infinite wisdom and sagacity and I hope and trust that justice will be rendered to me, that no other woman will have to face agony at the hands of Magistrates like Mr. Komalsing Rajput. And in that in unstinted faith and hope, I remain.

With most respectful regards,

Yours Sincerely,

Sabina Yusuf Lakdawala

P.S. It is unnecessary for me to annex the entire records, documents and orders passed by the Shri. Komalsing Rajput, Magistrate. His order dated 22.12.2021 alone speaks volumes of his improper conduct, motivated by extraneous considerations, to put it mildly.

Annexure- Copy of the order dated 22.12.2021